Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

I find that IS isn't as effective at these shorter FLs. I played with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, and I can get sharp pics at around 1/20s with IS off without too much difficulty. 4 stops from that would be close to 1s, and those were far from being sharp with any type of consistency...

I don't have steady hands. Without IS, the slowest shutter speed I'm willing to shoot is 1/60. Be able to shoot 1/10 and still getting sharp image would be a dream for many of us. It's nice to see Canon starts realeasing new lenses. Hope they will bring their best 50mm to the game.

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS? Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

I think that the 17-40 will continue on in the active product line for a few more years; it may eventually phase out. The next 16-35/2.8 will be equipped with IS (just like the next 24-70/2.8 will).

My 17-40 turns 11 this month. I don't use it nearly as much as I used to in my crop days (not much of a wide-angle guy), but I'll replace it with the 16-35/4 IS in a couple of years, after its price has settled, and a year rolls around when there's nothing else I want to buy. (Like the 35/2 IS this year.)

I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.

Depends on how much better the optics are, but I think your intuition is probably not far off. An example that would be dead-on to what you are saying:

The coexistence of the 70-200 F/2.8L (non-IS) and the 70-200 F/4L IS at nearly the same price. IQ of the two (from what I've read) is very close, so it's a value proposition of the [speed] + [opportunity to use 2x T/C with retained AF] of the F/2.8 versus the [IS] + [lighter] + [smaller] + [10 years newer] of the F/4L IS. Canon apparently thinks those combinations of features are of equal value to photographers and price them accordingly.

An example that would speak against what you are saying:

24-70 F/2.8L I or II vs. the 24-70 F/4L IS. Take away the 2x T/C opportunity (not compatible at this length) and my prior comparison of speed vs. lighter / IS still works. But in these cases, the IQ is not the same between these lenses, and the prices are therefore quite different.

My thoughts, exactly.I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own. That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.[/quote]

How do you compare a 35L to the 16-35 f/2.8II? One thing that the 16-35mm can do a whole lot better than the 35L is 16-34mm!!!!!!!! LOL..you had to know you were walking into that one!

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?

Agree. I think 77mm is the new F/4 zoom lens standard and 82mm is the new F/2.8 zoom lens standard.

Primes similarly are odd ducks and also offer the odd inconvenience to us:

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?

Agree. I think 77mm is the new F/4 zoom lens standard and 82mm is the new F/2.8 zoom lens standard.

Primes similarly are odd ducks and also offer the odd inconvenience to us:

FWIW, I'd like to stay a 3 diameter filter guy if I can. Right now I'm 58/77 for everything I own except for the 100L. Here's hoping this new F/4L will be the same.

- A

I don't use filters much, so maybe I'm missing something. But I have an ND filter that I got for the 24-105 (which is 77mm if I remember rightly), and got some step-down rings so it fits the other lenses I have. Is there any reason to have a filter for each lens? The only things I can think of are marginal time saving, not having to swap from one to another, and I suppose those people who have clear/UV filters for protection (not my thing) would want each lens covered.

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

Yeah, looks like Canon is making a range of consumer level 'L' lenses in full frame format, to suit the 6D